Oh FFS. Not again!

[motorbiking]

I’d politely suggest you read up or you can treat my post as unsupported opinion. I don’t really care.

You will of course see that the U.K. has one of the highest approval rates. We also are far more likely to approve a claim that has been rejected by other safe countries (until the recent legal changes).

Pull factor? Hard to argue it’s not.

 

[Munroast]

You are still refusing to answer my question: "what has changed, with regard to immigration policies, has changed since the election?"
While you refuse to answer, you're displaying your ignorance of that which you wish to participate in discussions.

I have explained it, nay be it is beyond your comprehension, but I will try again

The previous gov always talked tough when it come to migration (they were not very good at delivering, always thwarted by lefy lawers) but they always talked tough. We will send them all to Rwanda, we're closing our borders we will deploy the royal navy - that sort of thing, the impression any hopeful migrant would have gleaned was, he was not welcome.

Come Starmer - mass arrests and imprisonment of those who hate migrants, lots of talk of integration, faster processing, become British faster, a job , a house, a car (not relistic by a long way but) but that is the dream. The left has always opposed any plan the previous gov had to stop inward migration, so the salient message is, they will lift all the barriers, they will be the opposite of the last lot

Yes, no substantial changes on paper enacted in parliament yet - but the fundamental attitude has changed from, go away you're not welcome, to we understand and love you, we're on your side.

 

[denso13]

You will of course see that the U.K. has one of the highest approval rates. We also are far more likely to approve a claim that has been rejected by other safe countries (until the recent legal changes).

Which doesn't in itself mean the approval was wrong of course.

 

[IT Minion]

I’d politely suggest you read up or you can treat my post as unsupported opinion. I don’t really care.

You will of course see that the U.K. has one of the highest approval rates. We also are far more likely to approve a claim that has been rejected by other safe countries (until the recent legal changes).

Pull factor? Hard to argue it’s not.

Nothing to do with the smaller numbers coming here or different demographics. But you don't care.

 

[IT Minion]

You think about it. No, I’m saying we should send over manpower and technology to help them.

You'd lose your money - BBC breakfast crew and reporter and in any case, think about it again, if a TV FILM CREW can find and film them, why can’t the French authorities fund and stop them?

The breakfast crew found ONE. You want every boat crossing. Spot the difference.

I'll bet the local guides were quite useful and I still wouldn't be surprised if it was a local team, especially given it's the BBC and they hire locals.

 

[Brigadier]

I’d be happy with 303 per year. Even 10x that would be ok.

Apply for residency in Japan then

 

[Notch7]

Whatever needs doing has got to come from the French side. Whether it means smashing the gangs or preventing the boats setting off. You see on the news that they have 'minders' protecting the boats being launched with clubs and bats from being stopped by a couple of French Gendarmes with their arms metaphorically tied behind their backs. We need armed riot police or the army to outnumber these thugs - send over our own if we have to. Also needed are fast response teams, drones, light aircraft with heat seeking technology to pinpoint their location before they even cross the beach. Can’t be that hard if British TV crews can find and film them leaving. None of that is being done for the £75,000,000 that we are chipping in for. A better idea would be to pool resources with the French and Italians and prevent then landing in Italy in the first place.

Any that are picked up in the sea should be taken straight back to their departure point. Once it is known that there is little chance of setting off or being returned if they are picked up in the sea, that will put an end to the smuggling gangs business model. Waving them off and ferrying them across once they are at sea is just fuelling the smuggling business.

Usual nonsense

1) the French aren't going to stop them leaving, it's in their interest.

You don't want coming here, why should French people want to keep them

2) we can't return them to their departure point, once they've left French waters we need an agreement to return them

As usual Mottie has zero answers and is just repeating g the same old false ideas

 

[Mottie]

The breakfast crew found ONE.

There was only ONE breakfast crew.

 

[Odds]

This thread is sponsored by...

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

I have explained it, nay be it is beyond your comprehension, but I will try again

The previous gov always talked tough when it come to migration (they were not very good at delivering, always thwarted by lefy lawers) but they always talked tough. We will send them all to Rwanda, we're closing our borders we will deploy the royal navy - that sort of thing, the impression any hopeful migrant would have gleaned was, he was not welcome.

Come Starmer - mass arrests and imprisonment of those who hate migrants, lots of talk of integration, faster processing, become British faster, a job , a house, a car (not relistic by a long way but) but that is the dream. The left has always opposed any plan the previous gov had to stop inward migration, so the salient message is, they will lift all the barriers, they will be the opposite of the last lot

Yes, no substantial changes on paper enacted in parliament yet - but the fundamental attitude has changed from, go away you're not welcome, to we understand and love you, we're on your side.

And you think the asylum seekers are tuned into governmental whispers?

I'll tell you what exactly has changed: Labour have said they would process asylum seekers that arrived before the Illegal Migration law came into force. I.e it is no longer retrospectively applied.
They have not said they would repeal it for asylum seekers that arrive after it came into force.

that is about the only change that has occurred.

So now that you are better informed, please explain how you arrive at this conclusion, bearing in mind the only asylum seekers that are affected are those that arrived before July 2023:

the swift justice (or leftie political determination) sent out the message that they have the backing of the gov, the courts and the police, of course that is more welcoming

...

Otherwise you have been exposed for posting utter garbage of which you have little understanding.

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

The more "restrictions", "policing", "gadgets" that are employed to stop the boats launching, the more the people smugglers will launch from more and more riskier sites.
The increase of policing does not stop the asylum seekers, it drives them into more dangerous and riskier crossings.
We saw that with the stopping of lorry "hitch-hiking"., driving the asylum seekers into boats.
Each supposed attempt at reducing asylum seekers creates more deaths.

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

Come Starmer - mass arrests and imprisonment of those who hate migrants,

Yes, Labour have demonstrated they're the party of law and order.
That is exactly what the migrants seek, a law abiding country, where Human Rights and law reigns supreme.

Yes, no substantial changes on paper enacted in parliament yet

Thank you for realising it.

but the fundamental attitude has changed from, go away you're not welcome, to ..

UK is a country of law and order where mob rioting will not be tolerated.

 

[diy_fun_uk]

It really is as simple as the following:

ALL European countries need to work collaboratively on a long term solution to this. The migrants themselves should not be blamed.

Of course, although I used the word simple above, although it appears a simple thing to action, in reality it'll probably never happen, so the issue will only increase.

 

[Vinty]

There are solutions.

Unfortunately though, there are bothersome things like human rights that get in the way of them.

Probable solutions wouldn't be acceptable in a democracy.

 

[Munroast]

UK is a country of law and order where mob rioting will not be tolerated.

except during BLM when Starmer and the police took the knee - it's clearly a two tier system, hence the name two tier kier - fits him like a glove

Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with the swift and powerful justice meted out, but we need this justice for all crime, not just when Labour needs to shut up people of a different political stripe.

And you think the asylum seekers are tuned into governmental whispers?

of course they are, they will all have the latest iPhones, undoubtedly being fed exaggerated nonsense from the smugglers who wish to sell more tickets at a higher price
I'm sue it will go something like - Roll Up Roll Up - new gov in charge who are desperate for you, 3 bed house, pretty wife, swimming pool and a new bmw all await. Pay us 4K and you will get a seat on a safe boat and a guaranteed story of your need for asylum